《Studies on Negative Pragmatic Transfer in Interlanguage Pragmatics 精品英语论文.doc》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《Studies on Negative Pragmatic Transfer in Interlanguage Pragmatics 精品英语论文.doc（10页珍藏版）》请在三一文库上搜索。
1、Studies on Negative Pragmatic Transfer in Interlanguage Pragmatics Abstract: Transfer is a pervasive term and this has led to diverse interpretations and research practices of it. This paper reviewed the related literature on transfer studies in second language acquisition, linguistic studies and no
2、n-linguistic. It also made a survey about approaches in transfer studies, native speakers attitudes toward transfer, and transfers made by Chinese learners of English. It was argued that transfer research evolved from a linguistic-to- non-linguistic path, and there is a necessity in the current tren
3、d to shift from the former to the latter.Keywords: transfer, linguistic transfer, pragmatic transfer, second language acquisition What is negative pragmatic transfer? As was mentioned in Section 1.1, transfer to pragmaticians means difference of use due to NL influence. And to understand what is dif
4、ferent, a preliminary step was to sort out similarities and differences between languages and the use of these languages. The effort to study how non-native speakers understand and realize a speech act in the TL has spiraled into a tradition identified as the study of pragmatic universals. As many a
5、s 11 speech acts have been covered to date: requests, suggestions, invitations, refusals, expressions of disagreement, corrections, complaints, apologies, expression of gratitude, compliments and indirect answers (Kasper, 1992).Kasper (1995) focused on pragmatic transfer and defined it as “the influ
6、ence exerted by learners pragmatic knowledge of languages and cultures other than L2 on their comprehension, production, and acquisition of L2 pragmatic information” (Kasper, 1992; 1995). 2.1 Role of negative pragmatic transfer in interlanguage pragmatic studies The study of the learner language has
7、 been a growing source of concern also in pragmatics in recent years. The pragmatic perspective toward the learner language led to the birth of a new interdiscipline, interlanguage pragmatics (ILP). As the main focus of pragmatics is to examine how an utterance meaning is perceived, interlanguage pr
8、agmatics mainly concerns with how non-native speakers differ from native speakers in interpreting and producing a speech act in the TL. To find out the differences, ILP researchers will base their studies on collected data. The first issue they will tackle is the range of difference between non-nati
9、ves and natives in performing and comprehending a speech act. On this basis, they will proceed to the contextual distribution of such differences, strategies in target language use, linguistic forms used for conveying an idea in the target language, illocutionary meanings and politeness (Blum-Kulka
10、et al, 1989; Kasper, 1992; Takahashi, 1990). All this is related to transfer in one way or another. The relatedness of transfer is also apparent in current issues of ILP research. For instance, one of the topics of immediate research interest in ILP nowadays is to investigate language universals und
11、erlying cross-linguistic variation and its role in ILP. The sorting out of language universals naturally helps us find out what is a negative pragmatic transfer. Measuring approximation of the learners language to TL norms is another current topic. Placing the learner language against the TL norm al
12、so helps us to find out the difference between the learner language and the target language and similarity between the learner language and the learners native language. Another current research topic in ILP is to study NL influence on the learning of TL. This is direct topic addressing the transfer
13、 issue (Kasper & Schmidt, 1996; He Ziran, 1996; Liu Shaozhong, 1997d). It is not hard to see the importance of pragmatic transfer in all these research topics. 2.2 Contrastive studies of speech acts A host of transfer-related studies have been documented. These cross-cultural examinations were condu
14、cted with a view to find out how non-native speakers, due to their NL influence, differ from native speakers in understanding and realizing a particular speech act. Cohen & Olshtain (1981) studied how Hebrew learners of English as L2 did things with their interlanguage of English, and discovered tha
15、t the nonnative use of apology semantic formula was generally fewer than that of the native English speakers. By this, the study displayed the transfer of Hebrew features into the realization of apology making. Olshtain (1983) also attempted at finding the degree and types of transfer among some Eng
16、lish and Russian speaking learners of Hebrew as L2. Her elicitation questionnaire on apology of eight situations showed that English learners percentage of apology making was the highest, and next was that by the Russians, with that by the Hebrews the lowest. She further illustrated this tendency in
17、 another similar test among the Hebrew IL of English-speaking learners. Different from Olshtain, Scarcella (1983) (cited in Kasper, 1992) specifically examined the discourse accent of some Spanish-speaking English learners. She found the communicative style of her informants comparable to those in t
18、heir native language Spanish. Thus Scarcella claimed that Spanish learners of English as a second language (ESL) shifted what was conceived of as communicatively appropriate L1 styles into English. House (1988) echoed Scarcella by executing her study among her German students learning British Englis
19、h. In apology realization, these German-speaking learners of English were observed to have transplanted their German communicative styles, for these learners were less inclined to use routine apology expressions such as “sorry” as by the British. Garcia (1989) replicated a study among some Venezuela
20、n Spanish speakers on the realization of the apology speech act. Different from the above studies, Garcias interest was to uncover whether the learners transfer their L1 politeness style in the role-play situations. Her findings were that the Venezuelans used more positive politeness strategies by s
21、aying something nice so as to express their friendliness or good feelings, while the native Spanish speakers applied more negative styles such as self-effacing. Beebe, Takahashi, & Uliss-Weltz (1990) initiated a study among the Japanese learners of English as a second language concerning the making
22、of refusals. The difference detected was apparent in that Japanese ESL learners conceptualized the necessity of stressing the status difference in interactions, while the Americans denied the existence of such differences even if such differences indeed existed. In an exploration about politeness or
23、ientation among the Japanese ESL learners, Takahashi and Beebe (1993) reported that the Japanese turned to reject positive remarks in situation where the Americans favored them; and that the Japanese employed formulaic expressions, whereas the Americans denied them. Takahashi & Beebes (1993) studied
24、 the performance of correction by Japanese ESL learners. In their article entitled “Cross-linguistic influence in the speech act of correction”, Takahashi & Beebe (1993:138-157) reported that the Japanese learners shifted styles from Japanese in the selection of strategies. In their previous studies
25、 on face-threatening acts carried out by the same groups of native and nonnative speakers, the authors pointed out the learners distinctive patterns of style shifting according to interlocutor status. Focusing on the modification of corrections by means of positive remarks and softeners, the Japanes
26、e learners style-shifting patterns were clearly influenced by transfer from Japanese. While Japanese learners, reflecting native sociopragmatic norms, shifted more styles than American respondents in performing refusing, contracting, and disagreeing. However, this study indicated dramatic style shif
27、ting in the American speakers use of positive remarks. Their prevalent use of positive remarks in the high-low condition, which was not matched by the Japanese learners or Japanese native speakers, provided more evidence of a positive politeness orientation in American interaction, and greater empha
28、sis on status congruence in Japanese conversational behavior. The study also supported Beebe & Takahashis earlier claim that pragmatic transfer prevailed in higher proficiency learners. Blum-Kulka (1982; 1983) investigated request realization by English learners of Hebrew as L2. She discovered that
29、English learners of Hebrew negatively transferred their pragmalinguistic forms into the Hebrew ability (“can you”) questions, and in the choice of directness levels in request realization. The former case reflected the learners inability to convey the pragmatic force, while the latter displayed that
30、 where the Hebrew context demanded more directness, the learners preferred indirect strategies. However, for imperative questions, ability questions, why not questions and Do you mind if forms, English learners of Hebrew successfully transferred the cross-linguistically shared strategies. Thus, Blum
31、-Kulka concluded that apparent similarity in form and function across languages did not hold for all contexts. Olshtain (1983) repeated Blum-Kulkas study by looking into a particular semantic formula. Like Blum-Kulka, she also took as her informants the English learners of Hebrew. She detected that
32、English learners were habitual to map the English semantic formulas into Hebrew when expressing apology and offering repairs, which was not preferred in Hebrew under the same speech situation. This study thus provided further evidences for her previous studies (Oshtain, 1981) and Olshtain & Cohen (1
33、989). By DCT (dialog completion test) technique, House & Kasper (1987) launched a “CCSARP (cross-linguistic speech acts realization patterns) Project” with a focus on mainly the German and Danish learners of British English for the purpose of locating deviations in the choice of directness levels in
34、 five request situations. They discovered that, among other things, both German and Danish learners of British English deviated from the British norm and followed their L1 norms in the choice of directness of the request in two of the five situations. For example, these L2 learners turned to use dir
35、ect imperatives, while the British used less direct preparatory questions. Besides, in terms of internal and external modifications, analyses of the data suggested that negative pragmalinguistic transfer should be observed in that both learners use fewer syntactic downgraders. Finally, transfer oper
36、ated differently between these two groups of learners in that more supportive moves by the Danish learners of English were identified in cases where the German learners of English employed frequently consultative devices. Trosborg (1987) conducted another study among the Danish learners of English r
37、elative to apology realization by way of role-play technique. In spite of the fact that he did not find any clear cases of negative L1 pragmalinguistic transfer, yet he discovered certain evidences showing a direction in the frequency of apology semantic formulas identical to Danish native speakers.
38、 House (1988) showed that her German students of English over-used the formal L2 equivalent of “excuse me” in cases which did not entail needs for apologetic acts. This was due to the fact that in German the high rate of using “Entschuldgen” (=excuse me) was wholesome acceptable. By observing the sp
39、eech act realization of request, Faerch & Kasper (1989) probed into the internal and external modifications among Danish learners of English and German as against respectively the English and German speakers. They reported that the Danish learners turned to map formally the Danish modal verbs and co
40、nsultative device into their L2 of English and German. In addition, the Danish learners were speculated to be following the Danish negation rule in realizing requests in German. The Japanese heavily utilized indirect strategies in their speech. Takahashi & Dufon (1989) carried out a test just to exa
41、mine whether Japanese learners of English as L2 would negatively transfer their pragmalinguistic features in the case of request strategy. Role-play was used, and it was displayed that the transfer had much association with specific goals of interaction. In cases with a strong desire for something,
42、the Japanese depended on more directness strategies than the Americans do; while in cases when a desire was implicit, they used fewer indirect request strategies than the Americans. DeCapua (1989) studied the choice of directness level. Her German learners of English as L2 were assigned to do five s
43、ervice-counter situational interactions concerning complaints. She showed that the German learners often directly transferred linguistic forms identical to their German into English. Beebe, Takahashi, & Uliss-Weltz (1990) specifically explored into the use frequency of “excuse among the Japanese lea
44、rners of English as L2. They reported that, in terms of variables such as place, time, and parties, the Japanese, different from the Americans, seemed less specific in pleading for an excuse. However, in the speech act of refusals, the Japanese appeared to pose more frequency of negative pragmalingu
45、istic transfer. Thus it was concluded that the chance of negatively transferring a pragmalinguistic feature into the TL was determined by the contents of semantic formula. Bergman & Kasper (1993) scrutinized apology realization by Thai learners of English by means of 20 DCT situations. The result de
46、monstrated that 50% of the responses cluster on the transfer side. Among these transfer features the Thai learners mapped into English included six situations of the Thai verbal redress. Up till now, the following speech acts have been investigated cross-linguistically: request (Blum-Kulka, 1982; 19
47、83; House & Kasper, 1987; Faerch & Kasper, 1989; Takahashi & Dufon, 1989), complaint (DeCapua, 1989), and apology (Cohen & Olshtain, 1981; Olshtain, 1983; Trosborg, 1987; House, 1988; Garcia, 1989; Beebe et al, 1990; Bergman & Kasper, 1993), refusal (Beebe et al, 1990), and correction (Takahashi & B
48、eebe, 1993). Besides, some other non-linguistic factors, such as discourse accent (Scarcella, 1983) and politeness orientation and styles (Takahashi & Beebe, 1993) were also scrutinized. Subjects examined ranged from the English learners of Hebrew as TL (Blum-Kulka, 1982; 1983; Olshtain, 1983), the
49、German learners of English (House & Kasper, 1987; House, 1988; DeCapua, 1989), the Danish learners of English (House & Kasper, 1987; Trosborg, 1987; Faerch & Kasper, 1989), the Japanese learners of English as TL (Takahashi & Dufon, 1989; Beebe et al, 1990), the Hebrew (Cohen & Olshtain, 1981), the Russian (Olshtain, 1983), the German (House, 1988), the Spanish (Scarcella, 1983), the Venezuelan (Garcia, 1989), and the